[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <481682D6.5010207@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:07:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Immediate Values - jump patching update
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Peter, do you have something like the following code in mind ?
>
Basically, although I was suggesting using a per-site dynamic piece of
code. Data items may not necessarily be in registers.
> I think the main differences between the code snippet down here and the
> markers is that markers rely on the compiler to generate the stack
> setup, and have this code a little bit closer to the function than what
> I propose here, where I put the stack setup code in a "farfaraway"
> section. Moreover, markers are much simpler than what I show here.
> And actually, markers can be deployed portably, with
> architecture-specific optimizations refined later. This has to be
> implemented all up front for any traced architecture. In addition,
> dealing with weird types like unsigned long long can become a pain.
> Also, due to fact that we are asking the compiler to put keep some
> variables live in registers, I would be tempted to embed this in a block
> controlled by an if() statement (conditional branch, like I use for the
> markers) so we don't have to pay the penality of populating the
> registers when not required if there are not live at the marker site.
We're requesting to keep them *alive*, but not necessarily in registers
(that would be an "r" constraint.)
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists